 |
|
Home
Wrestling
WWE
TNA
Tape Reviews
Other
Sports
Basketball
Football
Baseball
Hockey
International
Entertainment
Movies / TV
Music
Gaming
Technology
Books / Comics
" The Gravel Pit "
|
|
|
|
Wrestling
Then and Now
Posted by Peter Kostka on Feb 19, 2005, 21:11
|
|
In October of 2001, Dave Meltzer wrote a piece in the Observer Newsletter about the results of a survey he offered to longtime wrestling fans over the age of 30 since that was the audience that was rapidly dwindling for wrestling at the time, more so than any other demographic. This was a bit surprising, since older fans usually stick around during lean times, because they have been watching for so long. The survey consisted of one simple question:
Is your interest in wrestling on the decline? If so, why?
The responses rolled in by the hundreds and Meltzer compiled the top 25 reasons given. Some couldn�t be helped (real life got in the way), and others were specific to that time (mostly involving the botched Invasion angle and Stone Cold Steve Austin�s heel turn), so I will ignore them for the sake of this piece. Most of the reasons, however, were ones that most fans had about how the WWF wrote, booked, and presented their programs week after week. I decided to investigate if World Wrestling Entertainment has addressed any of these complaints, or if they continue to be prevalent 3+ years later.
I will italicize the points in Meltzer�s piece, followed by my own analysis of whether it still applies today.
- 20 minute interviews: This was cited as the main tumoff of Raw and Smackdown. There was a lot of consistency in response that people didn�t mind three to five minute promos from top people, and most fans love interviews, but the lengthy promos at the start of the show were mentioned by too many people as the specific reason they no longer watch the show.
Now: It does seem as though WWE has learned their lesson a bit on this, as more frequently than before, both RAW and Smackdown start with a match. However, this is more evident on Smackdown, since RAW still has Evolution strolling out to stroke each other�s egos a fair amount of the time, along with the occasional Chris Jericho Highlight Reel.
- Legs cut from under midcarders: Somewhere along the way, they gave up hope that midcarders were ever going to advance. They've been teased with false starts too many times and no longer watch. This hurt WCW and led to its decline, and the same thing is happening in WWF. This one is big.
Now: This might be even worse now, since both RAW and Smackdown�s midcards are a complete mess, full of bad wrestlers and crappy gimmicks (perhaps a bit more on the Smackdown side with guys like Kenzo Suzuki, Rene Dupree, and Heidenreich, but RAW has guys like Gene Snitsky and Tyson Tomko, so they aren�t out of the woods themselves). There has been some elevation over the last few years, however; especially in the case of Chris Benoit and Eddie Guerrero, although they are now back where they were before early 2004, so it might be a wash.
- No suspension of disbelief: Or product mix. This is a group that wanted their wrestling product to be believable and characters consistent, and felt that was no longer the case. Characters doing things inconsistent with their character. Steve Austin's name frequently thrown in, often mentioned his alignment with Vince McMahon�people came to WWF based on the strength of that program and there was no logical storyline explanation for their uniting, basically the WWF was giving its fans that supported Austin the finger. This, along with a less than serious product and less dramatic product were all mentioned. I think there is something to this, but in the current environment, it's going to be hard to recreate it. New Japan is the company trying with its usage of shootfighters, and I think most would say it isn�t working.
Now: 2002 had a lot of this, with the incomprehensible Katie Vick storyline, where Kane was simply a wrestler in training instead of the disfigured brother of the Undertaker, but for a more recent example, look at the Kane-Lita angle. Lita allowed Kane to have sex with her (and thus, impregnating here) so he wouldn�t destroy her boyfriend Matt Hardy, but Kane did it anyway. So why are we supposed to buy that A) Gene Snitsky caused the death of her baby when it was KANE that fell on her and B) That Lita would all of a sudden forget about all that Kane put her through just so Snitsky can suffer? As far as the �less serious and dramatic� point? I think many fans would just tell WWE writers �KISS� or �Keep It Simple, Stupid� with a touch of simple continuity for all the characters. It shouldn�t be hard to look back on past shows to make sure it jives with what you are planning.
- Can�t get emotionally involved in characters: This seems to be a mix between points six and seven. Basically people aren�t fans of specific wrestlers because they cant get into the logic of how they are written, or have been burned too many times wanting and being teased they are climbing the ladder, only to get nowhere. Once again, illogical turns (Austin once again) and storylines that aren�t consistent were mentioned. This one I think is very valid, and points to writers who haven�t watched the shows long enough as casual fans, although names like Heyman, Hayes and Prichard have been around the business their entire lives so that shouldn�t be the situation.
Now: This is still a very big problem. Why should I be interested in Shelton Benjamin? Because he�s IC champion? Because he�s a �fighting champion� even though he hasn�t really defended the belt all that much? Because he�s black and has dealt with adversity? People are getting into Batista because he is being perceived as a threat to HHH and the fans actually buy it because of his look and how he�s been booked, something that they failed to do with Randy Orton. It helps that Batista looks great in a suit, but that�s beside the point.
- Lack of competition: I thought this would finish much higher. Some of this would figure into the folding of WCW and ECW and it was mentioned often. Wrestling is less interesting because there is only one major league group on television in the U.S. Once again points to almost a necessity of making a second company and making it a strong rebellious company with shots taken back-and-forth. but it's also something seemingly simple that has been such a disappointment already
Now: TNA at first looked like something to watch, but unfortunately they seem to be struggling to survive, and now some of their guys are jumping to the WWE. WWE has a monopoly on North American wrestling, so their writers can rest on their laurels a bit, since there is no more Nitro to steal away viewers from. WWE can say that they are in competition with other programs (i.e. Monday Night Football, Survivor, etc.), but RAW is usually in the top 10 in cable ratings every week while Smackdown is one of the highest rated shows on a network that isn�t even picked up in some parts of the country and isn�t usually the type of program a viewer of Survivor would watch anyway. WWE caters to a niche market, and they control that niche.
- Lack of emphasis on titles: Pretty much self explanatory. Also, too many titles on WWF broadcasts so titles, which used to be the holy grail when it came to their quest was the key in building business, have no meaning and thus most programs have no meaning. I see this as similar to [can�t getting emotionally involved with characters], again because some of the writers didn't grow up as or around a lot of wrestling fans or studied the business long-term to see that the biggest gates usually came from long storylines based on chasing titles. It's a chicken and egg thing now, as fans don�t care about any title but the WWF belt, and care less about that than they have in the past, so putting more emphasis is scary if fans don�t buy it.
Now: Actually, in the case of the top titles, they have succeeded in building up prestige for both brands titles by putting them on heels that fans can�t stand. Fans were very interested in the World Title controversy on RAW over December 2004-January 2005, because RAW had successfully established legitimate contenders over the year (although they completely voided the whole thing by having HHH win the title back anyway). Say what you want about JBL; the character is well done and with a strong (and popular) challenger, a feud will draw interest. HHH is well established so, like him or not, he has brought a lot of prestige to the World Title over the last few years.
The secondary titles are a completely different story, however. Both brands� tag titles are barely recognized (Smackdown�s are a bit over RAW�s, whose tag division seems to now consist of La Resistance and whoever wants to team with William Regal). RAW�s Intercontinental title is barely defended and usually against poor competition, while Smackdown�s US title is now completely altered to fit a character (a sure sign that it isn�t held in the highest regard) and once went half a year without being defended (during Big Show�s reign). I�ll address the Womens� title situation with the next point.
- Too much T & A: A surprising answer finishing this high. A lot of women responded that this, and the overall portrayal of women on WWF broadcasts, with the reason they gave up watching Raw and Smackdown, but there were men who didn�t like it either and stopped watching. In most cases, the explanation from men who stopped watching and listed this as the reason isn�t that they hated it in and of itself, but that they felt they weren't good parents to have the show on because they had children in the house, which led to them not watching for parental responsibility, and thus losing interest in the product overall. Also listed (and not counted but perhaps should have been) was too many women and too many matches involving women who can�t wrestle. While this does turn some people off and others on, the T&A increase led to an increase in popularity across the board early. Like everything in wrestling, when a little bit of something works, it's shoved down your throat until it doesn�t At this point it's considered part of the product and I think they'd lose more of an audience totally eliminating it, but overdoing it is also a negative. One relatively short segment on Raw a week is probably enough.
Now: This is definitely much, much worse than it has ever been in wrestling today. The Diva Search opened the floodgates to many attractive, but utterly useless women wasting TV time every week while the only woman that can be considered anywhere close to over and credible to the fans (Trish Stratus), has pretty much no one credible to defend her title against, except for Molly (who is barely on TV to begin with) and Victoria (ditto). Smackdown�s situation might be worse, since Torrie Wilson has long outlived her usefulness (she�s already posed in Playboy, which is all the fans want to see with her anyway. Just look at how that worked for Sable and Chyna; sure, it boosted their careers a bit to start, but once the fans see your tits, they�re satisfied unless you can bring something else to the table), and Amy Weber left because of backstage antics (when she actually had some semblance of a role on the show). If I was Christy, I would have thought twice about that Playboy spread. Plus, the rampant belief in WWE that �if you�re willing to dress and act slutty, you�re a face� turns off most of whatever female audience you have.
- Bad WWF television writing: Pretty much self explanatory.
Now: Hasn�t changed a bit. Just look at the Diva Search, the Katie Vick angle, the Diva Search, the buildup to the HHH/Jericho Wrestlemaina X-8 match, the Diva Search.
Stale WWF product: Same guys on top Same style of show, short matches, lengthy interview. No new matches. Rehashed angles. Many things went into this complaint
Now: HHH is still the top heel with no real equivalent on RAW, Benoit, Jericho and Eddie in the midcard, no semblance of a tag division. Yep, not much change, even with the changes in 2004. The more things change�..
No character consistency: This was a complaint both from the dying days of WCW as well as WWF. It wasn't so much the frequent turns, although that complaint was there, hut the lack of storyline to explain changes. Steve Austin's name and heel turn, particularly joining with Vince McMahon and HHH was frequently mentioned. Fans surrogately lived through Austin in hating HHH and Vince, and suddenly Austin didn�t care. It was like they had invested all this emotion in a fake storyline and felt jilted. Make no mistake about it, the Austin heel role, and teased face turn, coincided with all the downs and ups of ratings since Mania.
Now: Again, the Kane/Lita angle is a good example of this. Also, in the buildup to Wrestlemania X-8, Chris Jericho turned into the errand boy for Stephanie McMahon, the same duo that absolutely HATED each other since 2000. Why didn�t Jericho just tell her to shove it?
-Too much bad comedy: Self explanatory. People said if they wanted to watch comedy on Monday, they'd watch "Everybody Loves Raymond." They wanted to watch wrestling on Monday and weren't getting enough of it.
Now: Kenzo Suzuki enters the ring for a rap battle dressed as Uncle Sam�.har har. John Cena implies in his rap that a wrestler is gay�..haw haw. The Wrestlemania commercials have at least a LITTLE better humor to them. Save the comedy to the comedians.
- Rehashed storylines: Kurt Angle was doing all the same things that Steve Austin did to get over in 1997-98. People are watching repeats of what they had already seen. Part of the problem is during the 1997-2000 war period, so much was thrown out so fast that there is nothing new fans haven�t seen. Fans saw more angles and title changes in that four-year period than people who were fans from 1980-96 saw in 17 years, so everything started to look the same. It's not so much a lack of creativity, but paying for the excesses of the boom period.
Now: I agree with Meltzer in that this is because fans saw a bunch of stuff in such a small time, that anything they do now is compared to an angle back then. Though WWE does seem to fall back on some of the same angles: the wrestler/general manager feud (currently used by Carlito and Teddy Long), for example. Although, you could also call a �you have the title and I want it� storyline, or �I�m better than you and I want to prove it in the ring� rehashed as well, even though they are the simplest (and most effective) ways to go most of the time.
- Too many run-ins: Self explanatory. People have seen run-ins so often they became numbing. There is a reason for run-ins; to get heat. When you do it so often it becomes a regular occurrence, there is no heat. Now it's such an established part of wrestling that they are done in almost every match, and nobody probably ever stands back, gets away from the product, thinks about how the fan is taking this, and recognizes a pattern in some form needs changing. And there is a fear of change, so where if there is no run-in during the main events, there is no way to book a finish. To a lesser extent, too many referee bumps was also mentioned.
Now: How many matches involving a member of Evolution end up with the ref bumped and the other two members running in at the end? 8 out of 10? 9 out of 10? Every single one? Hell, how many WWE main event matches in general end up that way? Still a major problem in wrestling today.
- Lack of surprises: Things are too predictable. This isn�t the illogical swerves that make no sense from character consistency, but the surprises such as newcomers arriving and jumps like in the heyday.
Now: Whenever HHH loses the title, it is almost set in stone that he�ll regain it within a 2 month span. This might also be a fault of the internet as well, since if a certain worker mentions to a friend that he will debut on RAW on March 23rd that info is on the �Net within 24 hours. The last time I think I was really surprised was when ECW reformed during the Invasion. Before that, when Shane showed up on the last Nitro, but that�s about it. Benoit winning the Rumble and Eddie winning the WWE title wasn�t as much of a surprise as they would have been because guys like Meltzer were reporting rumors to that effect for a few months beforehand. Because of the Internet, we probably won�t see many true surprises in wrestling ever again, so it�s up to WWE to try to keep their big ones under wraps for as long as they can.
Not enough wrestling: There is always the balance of how much time during a show should be wrestling time. Bottom line is a lot of these complaints are from people who romanticize about wrestling and what it was in the past, which, in reality, it more often that not wasn�t. Most wrestling TV shows since the early 80s consisted of 3-5 minute television matches. At one point, WCW Saturday Night under Dusty Rhodes, during a period where ratings declined greatly, was doing a 30 second squash match/90 second interview format. The long matches were always saved for the arenas, and bottom line, on PPV you get 10 minute matches on the undercard, and 20 minute main events that more often than not are great. But there are people not watching because not enough time is spent in the ring. There is also a newer audience weaned on skits that considers the time in the ring as boring unless it's with one of the five or six main guys. You can�t satisfy both audiences.
Now: I think there is more wrestling on TV than there was during the �Crash TV� era, but the problem is that it usually takes a backseat to the skits and promos a lot of the time. The actual wrestling isn�t very good either, consisting of lots of chinlocks and guys acting like they�ve been in the ring for 30 minutes when it has only been 5. My belief is that, if you have around an hour and 20 minutes of actual airtime (minus commercials) in a two hour block, you should have about a 2:1 ratio of wrestling to backstage stuff. That equates to about 45 minutes of wrestling and 35 of promos. I added up the total ring time for the six matches on this past week�s RAW, and it came out to 39:05, which is about 6:30 per match (the Orton/Christian match was over 16 minutes, taking up the most time), which is close, although the average match time is still very low (should be about 8-10 per match, depending on who�s wrestling). They could have cut the Highlight Reel and the Trish/Christy confrontation down and added a bit more to the wrestling, however.
So what have we learned here? That WWE really hasn�t changed much in the last 3 years and what problems that have existed have actually gotten a bit worse over that time.
I�d like to hear from you about this. Especially if you are an older fan and have noticed the same things that were pointed out here. Send your thoughts to [email protected] putting �Then and Now� in the subject heading.
I�d like to thank Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer for doing the original piece, and a big thanks to Hunter�s Torn Quad for posting the entire article in the forums (must register to read).
| |
|
|
|
|
|
